NewEnergyNews: MORE NEWS, 7-2 (OBAMA ANNOUNCES BIGGEST EFFICIENCY EVER; WHO BOUGHT THE ENERGY/CLIMATE BILL; CALIF RULES F-I-T LEGAL)/

NewEnergyNews

Gleanings from the web and the world, condensed for convenience, illustrated for enlightenment, arranged for impact...

The challenge now: To make every day Earth Day.

YESTERDAY

THINGS-TO-THINK-ABOUT WEDNESDAY, August 23:

  • TTTA Wednesday-ORIGINAL REPORTING: The IRA And The New Energy Boom
  • TTTA Wednesday-ORIGINAL REPORTING: The IRA And the EV Revolution
  • THE DAY BEFORE

  • Weekend Video: Coming Ocean Current Collapse Could Up Climate Crisis
  • Weekend Video: Impacts Of The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current Collapse
  • Weekend Video: More Facts On The AMOC
  • THE DAY BEFORE THE DAY BEFORE

    WEEKEND VIDEOS, July 15-16:

  • Weekend Video: The Truth About China And The Climate Crisis
  • Weekend Video: Florida Insurance At The Climate Crisis Storm’s Eye
  • Weekend Video: The 9-1-1 On Rooftop Solar
  • THE DAY BEFORE THAT

    WEEKEND VIDEOS, July 8-9:

  • Weekend Video: Bill Nye Science Guy On The Climate Crisis
  • Weekend Video: The Changes Causing The Crisis
  • Weekend Video: A “Massive Global Solar Boom” Now
  • THE LAST DAY UP HERE

    WEEKEND VIDEOS, July 1-2:

  • The Global New Energy Boom Accelerates
  • Ukraine Faces The Climate Crisis While Fighting To Survive
  • Texas Heat And Politics Of Denial
  • --------------------------

    --------------------------

    Founding Editor Herman K. Trabish

    --------------------------

    --------------------------

    WEEKEND VIDEOS, June 17-18

  • Fixing The Power System
  • The Energy Storage Solution
  • New Energy Equity With Community Solar
  • Weekend Video: The Way Wind Can Help Win Wars
  • Weekend Video: New Support For Hydropower
  • Some details about NewEnergyNews and the man behind the curtain: Herman K. Trabish, Agua Dulce, CA., Doctor with my hands, Writer with my head, Student of New Energy and Human Experience with my heart

    email: herman@NewEnergyNews.net

    -------------------

    -------------------

      A tip of the NewEnergyNews cap to Phillip Garcia for crucial assistance in the design implementation of this site. Thanks, Phillip.

    -------------------

    Pay a visit to the HARRY BOYKOFF page at Basketball Reference, sponsored by NewEnergyNews and Oil In Their Blood.

  • ---------------
  • WEEKEND VIDEOS, August 24-26:
  • Happy One-Year Birthday, Inflation Reduction Act
  • The Virtual Power Plant Boom, Part 1
  • The Virtual Power Plant Boom, Part 2

    Thursday, July 02, 2009

    MORE NEWS, 7-2 (OBAMA ANNOUNCES BIGGEST EFFICIENCY EVER; WHO BOUGHT THE ENERGY/CLIMATE BILL; CALIF RULES F-I-T LEGAL)

    OBAMA ANNOUNCES BIGGEST EFFICIENCY EVER
    President Obama Announces New Light Bulb Standards; Biggest energy saver in history of Energy Department
    Andrew deLaski, Steven Nadel, Glee Murray, June 29, 2009 (American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy)

    "New national minimum energy efficiency requirements for light bulbs will save more energy than any other standard ever issued by any administration, according to a coalition representing environmental and consumer organizations, state government, and utilities. The new standards…will make the hundreds of millions of fluorescent tube lamps that light offices, stores, and factories more efficient. They also will phase out conventional incandescent reflector lamps, effectively extending the phase out of inefficient incandescent products initiated by Congress in 2007 to the common cone-shaped bulbs used in recessed light fixtures and track lighting…

    "According to the Department of Energy (DOE), lighting uses nearly 40% of all electricity used in commercial buildings…[Announced by President Obama, the standards] affect the more than 500 million fluorescent tube lamps and 265 million reflector lamps sold each year in the United States…"


    click to enlarge

    "…[The new standards] will save up to 1.2 trillion kilowatt-hours over thirty years, an amount about equal to the total consumption of all homes in the U.S. in one year. Businesses and consumers will gain up to $35 billion in net savings and global warming carbon dioxide emissions will be cut by up to 594 million metric tons, an amount equal to the annual emissions of nearly 110 million cars.

    "The maximum levels analyzed by DOE would have increased energy savings by another 230 billion kilowatt-hours over thirty years, or roughly enough to meet the power needs of 22 million more U.S. households for a year. The higher standards would have saved businesses and consumers as much as another $11 billion…"


    When the question is efficiency, the answer can be found here. (click to enlarge)

    "DOE is slated to set a total of 25 new standards during the current presidential term.

    "The new lamp standards, which will take effect in 2012, will have little effect on the outward appearance or lighting performance of the affected light bulbs. For fluorescent lamps, highly efficient “T8” lamps (lamps with a 1 inch diameter) will replace “T12” lamps (which have a 1.5 inch diameter). For reflector lamps, standard incandescent and halogen technology will be replaced with highly efficient halogen infrared reflector technology, a change that will save consumers energy, but not result in any outward change to reflector lamp appearance. In 2007, Congress enacted a phase out of standard incandescent light bulbs in favor of advanced incandescent technology and other high efficiency products starting in 2012."



    WHO BOUGHT THE ENERGY/CLIMATE BILL
    Southern Company Dominates the Climate Lobbying Scene
    Marianne Lavelle and David Donald, July 1, 2009 (Center for Public Integrity)

    "Southern Company, the nation’s largest electric power generator, also had the largest force of lobbyists among the hundreds of businesses and interest groups that were seeking to influence the landmark climate change legislation that just passed the House.

    "With 63 lobbyists, the Atlanta-based energy giant had nearly twice as many climate lobbyists as any other company or organization, according to registration statements filed with the Senate Office of Public Records for the first quarter of 2009. (The second quarter filings won’t be available for a few weeks.) Eleven of Southern’s climate representatives were in-house, while the rest came from a dozen different lobbying shops."


    click to enlarge

    "Southern’s interest in the bill is not surprising, since more than 80 percent of the 200 million megawatt hours of electricity its plants generate annually is fired by fossil fuel — the main source of greenhouse gases…For a comparison that illustrates just how huge Southern’s lobbying force is, look at the No. 2 power generator, American Electric Power, headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, which actually has a more fossil fuel-intensive fleet and higher carbon dioxide emissions than Southern. AEP had only nine registered climate lobbyists…

    "…[E]xpect more lobbying ahead, as action moves to the Senate…Although the list [of the top 10 businesses and organizations ranked by lobbyists hired on climate change in 2009] is certainly dominated by big energy generators and users, there are a few unabashed advocates of climate action on the list — most notably the political action arm of the Washington, D.C.-based Bipartisan Policy Center, headed by Jason Grumet, who served last year and in the transition as a top energy adviser to President Obama…"



    CALIF RULES F-I-T LEGAL
    California's Attorney General Says Feed-in Tariffs Legal in USA
    Paul Gipe, June 29, 2009 (Wind-Works)

    "… California's Attorney General (AG) argued that feed-in tariffs as proposed in California are not only permitted under federal law but that they should be used to encourage the rapid growth of renewable energy…The submission, part of hearings by the California's Public Utility Commission (PUC) on whether the state can meet its Renewable Portfolio Standard, is potentially far-reaching because feed-in tariff opponents often raise the specter of federal-government intervention on the grounds that renewable tariffs violate federal law.

    "The AG is the legal representative of the government of California. However…It is the PUC that will rule on whether to use feed-in tariffs and, if so, what rates should be set…[T]he filing by the AG has created a stir not only in California but nationwide for several reasons, not the least of which is that California's AG is… Jerry Brown…[former] governor of California from 1975-1983 and…widely recognized…for the massive development of renewable energy in California during the early 1980s. The majority of the wind and solar generating capacity operating in the state was installed during that period."


    Then and future Governor Brown's 1978 FiT was the world's first. (click to enlarge)

    "California won its reputation as a leader in renewable energy and energy conservation during Brown's administration and has lived off that reputation for nearly a quarter-century. It was under Brown's leadership that the then PUC created the world's first successful feed-in tariff…Brown has said that he plans to run for governor again in 2010.

    "The AG's filing specifically says that the PUC 'has sufficient legal authority to set feed-in tariff rates to promote the adoption of distributed generation.' Moreover, the AG goes on to encourage the PUC 'to proceed with its efforts and to set the feed-in tariff rate at a level that encourages a significant increase in the megawatts of distributed renewable energy available in California.'"


    click to enlarge

    "Feed-in tariff opponents have argued that the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), a part of 1978's National Energy Act, precludes renewable tariffs based on the cost of generation…The AG counters that…there are ways to meet PURPA's requirements while meeting the need to rapidly develop renewable energy through what amounts to setting a tariff based on the cost of generation…

    "Equally as important, the filing squarely confronts the Supreme Court's decades-old [Midwest Power case] decision throwing out an early feed-in tariff in Iowa on PURPA grounds…The mere threat of the old Midwest Power case was used effectively to kill a proposed Renewable Energy Sources Act in Iowa earlier this year…Feed-in tariff proponents are breathing a sigh of relief…"

    2 Comments:

    At 8:11 AM, Blogger Lighthouse said...

    Indeed!

    Light bulbs are a good example of the New America....

    Americans choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 9 times out of 10.
    Banning what Americans want gives the supposed savings - no point in banning an impopular product!

    All lighting devices have different advantages and give out different types of light.
    That's why they exist for people to choose.

    The ordinary simple light bulb responds quickly with bright broad spectrum light, is
    easy to use with dimmers and other equipment, can come in small sizes, and has safely been used for over 100 years.

    For some that is a reason for banning it: Why keep simple old technology?

    Because if modern lights were better, people would buy more of them instead.
    Consumers don't avoid products only because they are expensive - or no other expensive products would be sold.
    Nor do they keep buying cheap but poor products.
    There are - for example- well known batteries and washing up liquids that are expensive but sell well because they "last longer"
    - as they show in their advertising.
    Fluorescent light manufacturers and distributors are very happy to let governments promote their case,
    and happy that they ban the lights that people are buying, so the fluorescent (and/or LED) light manufacturers can win market share
    - why should they bother making better products and advertise them?
    They can clean up the market and charge what they like when those cheap competing rivals keeping down prices are gone.

    Is this the New America?
    You can buy any car, as long as it is an Obama car?
    You can buy any light bulb, as long as it is an Obama light bulb?

    Put it this way:
    New LED lamps are on the way.
    If they are good, people will buy them - no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (little point).
    If they are not good, people will not buy tham - no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (no point).

    "Look at all the energy we save",
    says President Obama.
    Since when does America need to save on electricity?
    There is no energy shortage, there are plenty of energy sources, and Middle East oil is not used for electricity generation.
    Consumers pay for any power stations, just as they do for factories and shops generally.
    Certainly it is good to let people know how they can save energy and money - but why force them to do it?

    "Look at all the emission savings",
    says President Obama.
    Do his light bulbs give out any gases?
    Power stations might not either:
    In Washington state practically all electricity is emission-free, around half of it is in states like New York and California.
    Why should emission-free households there be denied the use of lighting they obviously want to use?
    Such households will increase everywhere, since emissions will be reduced through the planned use of coal/gas processing
    technology or energy substitution.


    Why Light bulb bans are wrong (list of reasons with references)
    http://www.ceolas.net/#li1x

    About why all efficiency regulation is wrong,

    and how they affect performance, construction, appearance, price and savings on buildings, disheashers, cars, light bulbs etc
    http://ceolas.net/#cc2x

     
    At 7:49 AM, Blogger Lighthouse said...

    "Look at all the energy we save", says President Obama.

    Since when does America need to save on electricity?
    There is no energy shortage, there are plenty of local energy sources, Middle East oil is not used for electricity generation.
    Consumers pay for any power stations, just as they do for factories and shops generally.
    Certainly it is good to let people know how they can save energy and money - but why force them to do it?
    As it happens, not only can the savings -and desirability- be questioned for households to switch all lights (different light types suit different locations, and not all lights are often used),
    but there are also questions around having efficiency regulation on household products in the first place.
    Scottish research announced spring 2009 shows that since energy efficiency effectively means cheaper energy, people just use more energy, not worrying about wasting it!



    "Look at all the emission savings", says President Obama.

    Dear Mr President: Does your light bulb give out any gases?
    Power stations might not either:
    In Washington state practically all electricity is emission-free, while around half of it is in states like New York and California.
    Why should emission-free Seattle, New York and Los Angeles households there be denied the use of lighting they obviously want to use?
    Low emission households will increase everywhere, since emissions will be reduced anyway through the planned use of coal/gas processing technology or energy substitution.
    Again, the savings - and their value - can be questioned.
    Global warming is a global problem, whatever about carbon dioxide reduction effects on it.
    Thereby the irony of abandoning American jobs in the low energy consuming low emission making of simple safe cheap light bulbs in local factories,
    in favor of the high energy consuming high emission making of mercury containing expensive fluorescent lights in unregulated coal-powered China, with intercontinental transport emissions and recycling emissions added on top.
    It's called "environmental progress".....
    Without recycling, fluorescent lights leak mercury on dump sites, hard to deal with (and their locations unknown).
    Coal power emissions also contain mercury, but they can nowadays be dealt with as recent Government EPA data shows (and chimney locations are known).

    More about why it's wrong to ban light bulbs (list of reasons with references)
    http://www.ceolas.net/#li1x onwards

     

    Post a Comment

    << Home